"EVEN THOUGH BY DR. SMITH’S OWN ADMISSION TO JANE O’HARA HE RECOGNIZED THAT HE DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT DOG BITES, UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION AT THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRY HE VIGOROUSLY REFUTED THESE SUGGESTIONS BY DEFENCE COUNSEL, EVEN REMARKING THAT “AS ABSURD AS IT IS TO THINK THAT A POLAR BEAR ATTACKED SHARON, SO IT IS EQUALLY ABSURD THAT IT’S A DOG WOUND.”
DR. SMITH ADMITTED AT THE INQUIRY THAT HE WAS IN REALITY NOT AS CONFIDENT AS HE SOUNDED.
IN HIS EVIDENCE AT THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRY, DR. SMITH EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO SUGGEST, WRONGLY, THAT HE WAS UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION ABOUT THE PENETRATING WOUNDS IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THERE WERE DIFFERENCES IN WOUNDING PATTERNS BETWEEN CHILDREN AND ADULTS.
WHEN QUESTIONED AT THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRY ABOUT THE BASIS FOR HIS OPINION THAT THE SCALP WAS DELIBERATELY CUT OUT BY SCISSORS, HE TESTIFIED THAT MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION REVEALED THE WOUND EDGE TO BE REMARKABLY SMOOTH, EVEN THOUGH THE SCALP WAS NO LONGER IN A CONDITION TO BE EXAMINED WHEN IT WAS RETURNED TO HIM."
CASE STUDY; SYSTEMIC ISSUES; THE "SHARON" CASE; AFFECTED FAMILIES GROUP;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the most insightful reads that have come out of the Goudge Inquiry are studies of several of the cases studied by the Inquiry - with a view to identifying the systemic issues that they raise.
These case studies have been filed by lawyers Peter Wardle and Julie Kirkpatrick who represent the Affected Families Group;
The fourth case has been identified by the Inquiry as the "Sharon" Case;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of brief background:
Sharon was born in Kingston, Ontario in December of 1989.
She died on June the 12th, 1997 at the age of seven and a half (7 1/2).
On June the 26th of 1997, her mother was charged with second-degree murder in her death.
The preliminary inquiry was conducted the following year.
She was committed to stand trial on the charge and remanded without bail for some period of time when she was ultimately released with the consent of the Crown.
The Crown withdrew the charge on January the 25th, 2001, indicating that it did not have a reasonable prospect of conviction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Sharon case serves as an alarming example of misleading and Crown-biased testimony, confirmation bias, and tunnel vision," the case study begins;
"It also raises issues about forensic training, due diligence in preparing forensic opinions, post-mortem report writing, pathologist scene visits, allocation of cases amongst pathologists, and recording of material communications within the Ontario Chief Coroner's Office and between the Chief Coroner's Office and the police and Crown," it continues;
"Notwithstanding that Dr. Smith had little experience with penetrating wounds,263 he performed Sharon’s autopsy because he was asked to by Dr. Young.
He did not visit the scene.
He did not request that the autopsy be done by a forensic pathologist, nor did he seek the assistance of Dr. Chiasson, whom Dr. Smith knew to be one.
Dr. Smith was told by the police at the time of autopsy of their working theory that Sharon’s death was a homicide and that she was stabbed possibly by scissors.
Rather than shave the scalp to examine the wound edges microscopically (which Dr. Smith acknowledged he should have), he sent the scalp to be examined for head lice, which was indicated as a possible motive for the scalping.
The scalp was no longer in a condition to be examined by the time it returned from the entomologist.
Dr. Smith acknowledged at the Inquiry that he made a number of other basic errors in his post-mortem examination, including inadequate description of wounds and wound tracks, failure to measure the depth of one of the key penetrating wounds, insufficient tissue excisions around the wounds, failure to ensure sufficient photographs were taken, and failure to take swabs.
While at the time of the autopsy Dr. Smith knew of the possible presence of a dog in Sharon’s home when she died, there is little documentation of any communications between the police and the Chief Coroner's Office / Dr. Smith regarding the “alarming” information the police were gathering about the pitbull Hat Trick in the week following Sharon’s death.
Two days after the post-mortem examination, Dr. Smith unequivocally told Cst. Goodfellow in response to concerns raised about some of the wounds that they were “not domestic or wild animal in any way”.
This was then passed on to the investigation team.
It does not appear that Dr. Smith asked any questions during this conversation, and it is unclear whether the police volunteered any information.
The information emerging about Hat Trick should have made its way to Dr. Smith and formed part of his initial opinion.
Today, ten years later, it is still unclear what Dr. Smith knew about the dog and when he knew it.
Although Dr. Smith testified that he believed Mr. Blenkinsop would be consulting with Dr. Wood about the wounds, this is inconsistent with (a) Dr. Wood’s testimony that he was not consulted until many months later, likely as a result of the dog theory having been raised by the defence, and (b) Dr. Smith’s willingness to release Sharon’s body for burial three days after the autopsy even though Dr. Wood had not examined it.
A December 19, 1997 memo from Jennifer Ferguson to Jack McKenna suggests that Dr. Wood was being consulted to “nip [the defence’s dog attack] theory in the bud.”
Dr. Wood acknowledges that this phrasing was “particularly unfortunate”, as it suggests that he was being retained to give a specific opinion from the outset.
Like Dr. Smith’s initial oral opinion, Dr. Wood’s February 22, 1998 opinion regarding the wounds was unequivocal in rejecting the possibility of a dog attack.
278 It left no room for doubt, notwithstanding that it was based only on a review of some (not all) of the photographs, rather than an examination of the body, which Dr. Wood testified would have been “very important” in order to analyze the wounds.
When asked about whether his opinion ought to have been expressed in less certain terms, Dr. Wood’s response was to imply that it was up to the defence to cross-examine him about it at trial.
This answer suggests that Dr. Wood, like Dr. Smith, may indeed have viewed it as his role to nip the defence theory in the bud and support the Crown’s theory.
Equally telling is Dr. Wood’s email in 2000 to a colleague asking, “in extreme confidence”, for any information about Dr. Dorion to assist Dr. Wood in doing a “hatchet job” on him.
The research on dog attacks available at the time (which formed part of Dr. Wood’s own file in the Sharon matter) referred to patterns of wounding in young children similar to those on Sharon’s body, including scalp lacerations and scalp avulsion (separation).
Apparently, neither Dr. Smith nor Dr. Wood took the time to review this literature before they rendered their initial opinions.
Dr. Smith acknowledged that when testifying at the preliminary Inquiry he assumed the role of supporting the Crown’s position and dismissing the dog attack theory, notwithstanding that he knew by that time that he was supposed to be neutral and objective.
He did so by resisting a justified challenge to his relevant forensic experience by defence counsel and by expressing unjustified confidence in his opinion to assist with what he perceived to be the Crown’s strategy for undermining the defence’s dog attack theory.
Even though by Dr. Smith’s own admission to Jane O’Hara he recognized that he didn’t know anything about dog bites, under cross-examination at the preliminary inquiry he vigorously refuted these suggestions by defence counsel, even remarking that “as absurd as it is to think that a polar bear attacked Sharon, so it is equally absurd that it’s a dog wound.”
Dr. Smith admitted at the Inquiry that he was in reality not as confident as he sounded.
In his evidence at the preliminary inquiry, Dr. Smith even went so far as to suggest, wrongly, that he was uniquely qualified to render an opinion about the penetrating wounds in this case because there were differences in wounding patterns between children and adults.
When questioned at the preliminary inquiry about the basis for his opinion that the scalp was deliberately cut out by scissors, he testified that microscopic examination revealed the wound edge to be remarkably smooth, even though the scalp was no longer in a condition to be examined when it was returned to him.
In sum, through misleading and emotive testimony Dr. Smith managed to annihilate the defence’s theory that the wounds were caused by a dog attack.
This is reflected in the Court’s comment to defence counsel: “....lots of luck convincing a jury that this death was caused by a dog attack.... Based on the evidence that I’ve heard.”
After the American Academy of Forensic Sciences AAFS) meeting in February 1999, Dr. Young and Dr. Cairns clearly acted responsibly in raising concerns about the case.
No one at OCCO appears to have recorded the internal case conference between Dr. Cairns, Dr. Dr. Smith, Dr. Wood, Mr. Blenkinsop, and Dr. Queen at which the possibility of a dog attack was raised, and regrettably, dismissed.
The evidence as a whole suggests that the meeting was called by Dr. Cairns after he and Dr. Young returned from the AAFS meeting.
It is still a mystery, however, why so many present (with the exception of Dr. Queen) managed to miss what Drs. Pollanen and Milroy described as a straightforward diagnosis.
Dr. Chiasson was the pathologist who conducted and was in charge of the second post-mortem examination, notwithstanding that he felt his experience with dog-bites was limited and he did not have a high level of comfort.
With hindsight, Dr. Chiasson acknowledged that this may have been the reason he was unable to reach a definitive opinion regarding the nature of many of the wounds.
Dr. Chiasson also acknowledged, with hindsight, that the second autopsy presented a missed opportunity to engage and involve an independent forensic pathologist in the case.
It is not only Dr. Smith (and others at the Chief Coroner's Office) who exhibited tunnel vision in this case.
The Kingston police persisted in their view that Sharon’s mother killed her, despite the results of the second exhumation showing that a dog caused almost all of the wounds.
As indicated by Sgt. Bird in his April 2000 memo, “Make no mistake, the right person, Louise, is on trial. If we want justice to be served and her found guilty, it's an absolute must that we get back on track and work towards this common goal.”2
Also reflective of the police’s state of mind is Sgt. Begbie’s characterization of the mood as “doom and gloom”298 after Mr. Bradley became involved in early 2000, presumably because he began questioning whether the case could survive scrutiny.
Surprisingly, the views of the Kingston police about Sharon’s mother’s guilt persisted even after receiving Dr. Symes’ opinion which definitively dismissed the scalping theory – a key part of the police’s theory on motive.
This is evident from Chief Closs’s letter writing campaign following the withdrawal of the charges against Sharon’s mother, in particular his February 20, 2001 letter to The Kingston Whig-Standard calling for an independent inquiry into Sharon’s death.
The magnitude of the tunnel vision is perhaps best illustrated by Inspector Begbie’s inability at the Inquiry to even express a coherent theory of Sharon’s mother’s involvement following the changed medical evidence:
Basically, whether the – the mother was involved and the dog joined in, or whether the dog came down and foraged later, that’s – we – we weren’t able to tell that.
…
That was – that was the initial – from the onset of the case there was a scalping. The scalp come off somehow. Maybe the – maybe the dog is what's responsible, and that's – some of the defence experts have said with the – the injuries to the head is what's removed the – the scalp but the mother still could have inflicted injuries before."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Labor’s 30 pieces of voting silver
13 hours ago
